Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add a method to authenticate without a config file #53

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

calston
Copy link
Contributor

@calston calston commented Apr 11, 2019

I'd rather do this myself in a larger generic config file, probably other people to?

@szuecs
Copy link
Member

szuecs commented Apr 12, 2019

@calston can you fix the DCO (git commit -s -amend), we need to be compliant

@@ -69,6 +72,20 @@ func Setup(redirectURL, credFile string, scopes []string, secret []byte) {
}
}

// Setup the authorization path without a config file
func SetupFromString(redirectURL, cLoginURL string, clientID string, clientSecret string, scopes []string, secret []byte) {
Copy link
Member

@szuecs szuecs Oct 16, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Function should be Setup or maybe create an Options{} struct to pass it

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are you suggesting @calston modify the existing Setup? Adding functionality with a new SetupFromString would only be a minor version update, opposed to a major version update. I'm in favor of their current implementation.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe SetupWithOptions(o Options)

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ import (
"crypto/rand"
"encoding/base64"
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
//"fmt"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

delete line please

@@ -102,7 +119,8 @@ func Auth() gin.HandlerFunc {
session := sessions.Default(ctx)
retrievedState := session.Get("state")
if retrievedState != ctx.Query("state") {
ctx.AbortWithError(http.StatusUnauthorized, fmt.Errorf("Invalid session state: %s", retrievedState))
ctx.Redirect(302, loginURL)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

redirect makes sense, please just drop commented lines :)

@@ -69,6 +72,20 @@ func Setup(redirectURL, credFile string, scopes []string, secret []byte) {
}
}

// Setup the authorization path without a config file
func SetupFromString(redirectURL, cLoginURL string, clientID string, clientSecret string, scopes []string, secret []byte) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are you suggesting @calston modify the existing Setup? Adding functionality with a new SetupFromString would only be a minor version update, opposed to a major version update. I'm in favor of their current implementation.

func randToken() string {
b := make([]byte, 32)
rand.Read(b)
return base64.StdEncoding.EncodeToString(b)
}

// Setup the authorization path
func Setup(redirectURL, credFile string, scopes []string, secret []byte) {
func Setup(redirectURL, cLoginURL string, credFile string, scopes []string, secret []byte) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wouldn't modify this function signature. Doing so will break existing functionality and require a major version increment. Could we maybe use a mutator/setter to set the loginURL, something like SetLoginURL(loginURL string)?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or something like WithLoginURL(s string)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants